Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X’s council tax payments. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault regarding the recovery action and the injustice from the Council’s fault regarding his address is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council did not recognise a council tax payment he made in February 2025 and misallocated his March 2025 instalment payment. He says the Council sent final notices to the wrong address even though he had advised it of his move. The Council agreed a payment plan but then unfairly withdrew this. He says this caused him distress and financial hardship. He seeks a refund of £307 and compensation.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X complained to the Council regarding the matters in paragraph 1.
5. The Council replied that Mr X was in arrears at the end of 2024/25. He then paid the wrong instalments. As a result, the Council allocated payments to the oldest balance. The Council issued a summons and obtained a liability order adding costs of £75. Mr X did not pay three instalments for the 2025/26 year and then paid the wrong amounts. Therefore, the Council progressed recovery action on the 2025/26 year as well, adding costs of £75.
6. In response to Mr X’s earlier complaint the Council agreed to reallocate payments to the current year and withdrew the costs of £150 it had added. It later agreed to refund part of a payment of £955 that Mr X said he paid under duress. This left £266 to pay in two instalments.
7. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman that he considered the Council’s accounting was wrong and it owed him £307. He said the Council had not noted a payment of £125 he made in February 2025 and it ignored his change of address notification in March 2025.
8. We will not investigate this complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the way it handled Mr X’s council tax account to warrant investigation. Mr X did not pay the correct instalments on the correct dates. This led to the Council taking recovery action. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council allocating the payments made to the oldest debts. The Council withdrew the recovery action and costs in any case, so even if we considered this fault there is no significant injustice to Mr X.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has not recognised his payment of £125 in February 2025. The Council confirmed this payment was for Mr X’s previous address. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation here.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to update his address when he moved. The Council confirms it received Mr X’s notification in March 2025 but did not revise his address. While this is fault, we do not consider this caused significant injustice because Mr X was aware of the council tax due for both 2024/25 and 2025/6 and the Council has withdrawn the recovery action and costs.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no significant injustice or not enough evidence of fault to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman